No. 130

War, Peace or Neutrality:

An Overview of Islamic Polity’s Basis of Inter-State Relations

Muhammad Haniff Hassan

S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies

Singapore

28 June 2007

With Compliments

This Working Paper series presents papers in a preliminary form and serves to stimulate comment and discussion. The views expressed are entirely the author’s own and not that of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies

The S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS) was established in January 2007 as an autonomous School within the Nanyang Technological University. RSIS’s mission is to be a leading research and graduate teaching institution in strategic and international affairs in the Asia Pacific. To accomplish this mission, it will:

• Provide a rigorous professional graduate education in international affairs with a strong practical and area emphasis

• Conduct policy-relevant research in national security, defence and strategic

studies, diplomacy and international relations

• Collaborate with like-minded schools of international affairs to form a global network of excellence

Graduate Training in International Affairs RSIS offers an exacting graduate education in international affairs, taught by an international faculty of leading thinkers and practitioners. The Master of Science (MSc) degree programmes in Strategic Studies, International Relations, and International Political Economy are distinguished by their focus on the Asia Pacific, the professional practice of international affairs, and the cultivation of academic depth. Over 120 students, the majority from abroad, are enrolled in these programmes. A small, select Ph.D. programme caters to advanced students whose interests match those of specific faculty members. RSIS also runs a one-semester course on ‘The International Relations of the Asia Pacific’ for undergraduates in NTU.

Research RSIS research is conducted by five constituent Institutes and Centres: the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS, founded 1996), the International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR, 2002), the Centre of Excellence for National Security (CENS, 2006), the Centre for the Advanced Study of Regionalism and Multilateralism (CASRM, 2007); and the Consortium of Non-Traditional Security Studies in ASIA (NTS-Asia, 2007). The focus of research is on issues relating to the security and stability of the Asia-Pacific region and their implications for Singapore and other countries in the region. The S. Rajaratnam Professorship in Strategic Studies brings distinguished scholars and practitioners to participate in the work of the Institute. Previous holders of the Chair include Professors Stephen Walt, Jack Snyder, Wang Jisi, Alastair Iain Johnston, John Mearsheimer, Raja Mohan, and Rosemary Foot. International Collaboration Collaboration with other professional Schools of international affairs to form a global network of excellence is a RSIS priority. RSIS will initiate links with other like-minded schools so as to enrich its research and teaching activities as well as adopt the best practices of successful schools.

i

ABSTRACT

There is an increased interest in Islam in the field of international relations. This paper

seeks to offer an overview to the basis of inter-state relations between a Muslim polity

and other Muslim or non-Muslim polities. It presents three possible options that can

be the basis of international relations for an Islamic polity: war, peace and neutrality.

Three important sciences, known as popularly Usul Fiqh, Usul Tafsir and Usul

Hadith, which make up the core of Islamic hermeneutic, are used. The paper goes on

to argue that peace is the original basis and rejects the idea of perpetual war between

Islamic and non-Islamic polity as espoused by jihadist groups.

*********************

Muhammad Haniff Bin Hassan is a PhD Research Student at the S. Rajaratnam

School of International Studies (RSIS). He holds MSc in Strategic Studies at the

Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies, Nanyang Technological University. He

received his early education from Aljunied Islamic School. He then continued his

tertiary education at the Faculty of Islamic Studies, National University of Malaysia

with honours in Syariah and Civil law.

Mr. Haniff is also active in social activities as a member of the Islamic Religious

Council Appeal Board, HSBC Insurance Islamic Advisory Board, Council for

Association of Islamic Religious Teachers and Scholars of Singapore (PERGAS) and

Management Committee of Al-Irsyad Islamic School. He writes extensively in Berita

Harian (local Malay newspaper) and has also published articles in the Straits Times.

He has published five books in his name and helped to publish two books on behalf of

PERGAS and Islamic Religious Council of Singapore. His latest book is Unlicensed

to Kill: Countering Imam Samudra’s Justification For the Bali Bombing (2006).

ii

War, Peace or Neutrality: An Overview of Islamic Polity’s Basis of Inter-State Relations Introduction

Although the study of Islam and Muslims is not new and has been going on for

hundred of years, one could not but notice that there is an increase of interest on Islam

in political and international studies.

In the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS) itself, a research

programme on contemporary Islam was created and an increase of courses offered on

Islam for its Master’s programmes are a testimony to it. A similar trend can also be

seen in many other academic and research institutions all over the world.

This is partly contributed by Samuel Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations

theory that has created much debate on Islam, the emergence of Political Islam as one

of the leading contemporary security issues and political development that political

leaders and scholars have to grapple with, the 9/11 Terrorist Attacks and the Global

War on Terror that was launched by the United States in response to it and the

increased importance of the Middle East region as a source of global stability, security

and future economic growth area where Islam plays an important part.

This paper seeks to contribute to the increased interest in Islam in the field of

International Relations by offering an overview to the basis of inter-state relations

between a Muslim polity and other Muslim or non-Muslim polities that can be found

in the traditional and neo-traditional (a rewriting of classical works by contemporary

Muslim scholars with minor adjustments to suit the contemporary times but little

infusion of conventional theory to it) literatures relevant to the topic.

The paper begins with an introduction to Islam’s foundational view on politics

that Islam being understood as a comprehensive religion does not recognize the

separation of the religion from politics, and what constitutes an Islamic polity. It then

provides three possible options of inter-state relations in Islam: war, peace or

neutrality. Within these three options, it argues that peace is the original basis and

rejects the idea of perpetual war between Islamic and non-Islamic polity as espoused

by jihadist groups that have raised concern among security agencies and non-Muslim

political and community leaders.

1

The methodology taken in presenting the options is the classical Muslim

scholars’ methodology of ijtihad or deduction from the Quran and the hadith1, based

primarily on three important sciences popularly known as Usul Fiqh2, Usul Tafsir3

and Usul Hadith4. These three sciences could be considered to be the core of Islamic

hermeneutic. This approach also requires a study of the classical ulama’s texts to

investigate their stand on the pertinent issues.

It is hoped that this paper will provide an introductory perspective on Islam

and international relations and ideological underpinning of Muslim political view and

conduct for those who are interested in the field.

Foundational View—Islam and Politics

To understand Islam’s perspective of international relations requires an understanding

of the relationship between Islam and politics. The underlying concept of Islam’s

political view is the view that politics is an inseparable part of Islam. To appreciate

the close relationship between Islam and politic, it is important to understand two

important concepts.

The first concept is the view that Islam is a way of life. It is a comprehensive

religion governing all aspects of human life, with no separation between any of the

aspects.5 The comprehensiveness of Islam may be seen from the variety of books on

fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) and etiquette in Islam. These books discuss diverse topics

in life, from hygiene and the relationship between husband and wife to affairs of the

state, matters of justice and social regulations.

1 Collection of Prophet Muhammad’s deeds, statements and concessions. See Hashim Kamali, Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence (pp. 44, 46–7), Petaling Jaya: Ilmiah Publishers 1991; John L. Esposito (Ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Modern Islamic World (p. 83), New York: Oxford University Press, 1995. 2 The Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence. It has been defined as “methods by which the rules of fiqh are deduced from their sources”. See Hashim Kamali, Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence (p. 1). 3 Also known as Ulum Al-Quran. It is the science of interpretation of the Quran. See Jalal Ad-Din As-Suyuti, Al-Itqan Fi Ulum Al-Quran (Vol. 1, pp. 1–8), Dar Al-Fikr, place not cited, date not cited; Muhammad ’Abd Al-Azhim Al-Zarqani. Manahil al-‘Irfan Fi ‘Ulum al-Quran (Vol. 1, pp. 23–4), Cairo: Dar al-Fikr, date not cited. 4 Also known as Mustalah Al-Hadith. It is the science in the study of hadith. Its objective is to determine the authenticity of a hadith and how rulings can be deduced from it. See Muhammad ‘Ajjaj Al-Khatib, Usul Al-Hadith ‘Ulumuhu Wa Musthalahuhu (pp. 7–13), Beirut: Dar Al-Fikr, 1989; John L. Esposito (Ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Modern Islamic World (p. 84). 5 Sayyid Qutb, Milestone, available at www.youngmuslims.ca/online_library/books/milestones/hold/chapter_7.asp (Accessed 2 October 2006). See also Abu Al-`Aala Al-Maududi, Islamic Way of Life, available at www.youngmuslims.ca/online_library/books/islamic_way_of_life/index.htm#b2 (Accessed 2 October 2006).

2

Since Islam is a way of life, it certainly includes politics because politics is

part of the reality of life. This also means that Islam does not accept detaching any

aspect of life from the guidance of religion and it despises people in the past who

believed in part of God’s teachings and rejected the rest.

The second is the concept of man as God’s khalifah (vicegerent) of this world.

The Quran says, “And, behold your Lord said to the Angels: I will create a vicegerent

on earth.”6

As the khalifah, man is to submit fully to God and obligated to establish His

order by implementing what He has decreed in the Quran and has been explained by

His Prophet in the hadits (Prophet’s tradition) in all aspects of life in this world.

Establishing God’s order in this world is regarded as an important manifestation of

submission and worship of God.7

Based on the above two concepts, it is held that Muslims are responsible to

implement Islam in politics or to participate in politics in accordance with the

principles of Islam because it helps him to carry out his duty as khalifah. In fact, the

word khalifah itself means power and leadership in the Quran.8 Hence, a Muslim

cannot separate Islam from politics or politics from Islam.

To highlight the importance and role of politics in establishing God’s order in

the world, the Quran points out that God has made some of his prophets to become

kings and leaders, for example, the prophets Daud (David) and Sulaiman (Solomon).9

Even Muhammad was not only a prophet, but also the political leader of Medina.

Thus, Islam as a way of life differs from secularism. Secularism segregates the

role of religion from matters of society and state, limiting it only to the personal

sphere and to places of worship. In contrast, Islam has guidelines for all aspects of life

and demands its believers’ commitment to all its teachings.

6 The Quran, 2:30. 7 The Quran, 3:85, 51:56. 8 The Quran, 24:55. 9 The Quran, 21:78–9, 2:102.

3

Islamic Polity: A Traditional Perspective

Based on the above argument, it is then held that Islam should be the basis of the

Muslim’s conduct of state.

The terminology used to describe the Muslim’s political institution is Dar Al-

Islam (Land of Islam) or Ad-Daulah Al-Islamiyah (Islamic state). The latter is the

contemporary version but carries the same meaning.

There are two views on the meaning of Dar Al-Islam and Dar Al-Harb among

the classical scholars. One view states that the Land of Islam must be ruled by

Muslims and the Islamic ruling system is applied. Another view put emphasis on the

issue whether Muslims are in security or not. Thus, the condition for a land to be

recognized as Dar Al-Islam is where Muslims are safe and not persecuted because of

their religion.10

Where both the ruling system and the government are not Islamic or, from the

latter perspective, where Muslims are neither protected nor feel safe or at peace, the

land cannot be considered as Dar Al-Islam.

The leader of a Dar Al-Islam is traditionally known as the khalifah (caliph) or

amir al-mukmineen (emir). Thus, Dar Al-Islam is also known as a khilafah (caliphate)

or imarah (emirate).11

Basis of Relationship Between Dar Al-Islam and Non-Dar Al-Islam12

War as the basis

To understand the international relations of a Muslim polity with a non-Muslim state,

one needs to understand the basis of relationship, at the individual level, between the

Muslim and the non-Muslim because Muslim scholars view international relations as

just an extension of individual relations.

10 Tariq Ramadan, To Be a European Muslim (pp. 125–6), London: The Islamic Foundation, 2002. 11 Richard C. Martin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim World (Vol. 1, pp. 116–23, 169–70), New York: Thomson Gale, 2004; John L. Esposito (Ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Modern Islamic World (p. 239). 12 This section is extracted and improved from the writer’s work in Muhammad Haniff Hassan (Ed.), Moderation in Islam in the Context of Muslim Community in Singapore (pp. 187–223), Singapore: Pergas, 2004; and Muhammad Haniff Hassan, “Response to Jihadis’ View of Jihad: A Sample Approach to Counter Ideology Work” in Rohan Gunaratna (Ed.), Combating Terrorism (pp. 85–112), Singapore: Marshall Cavendish Academic, 2005; Muhammad Haniff Hassan, Unlicensed to Kill: Countering Imam Samudra’s Justification for the Bali Bombing (pp. 27–57), Singapore: Peace Matters.

4

There are two major views on this issue. One view suggests that that armed

jihad is the only kind of relationship that can exist between Muslims and non-

Muslims. To the proponent of this view, armed jihad is a standing obligation until the

end of the world and its aim is to fight infidels wherever they may be found, in

accordance with the Prophet’s utterance to “fight the polytheists until they say, ‘There

is no god but Allah’”. Armed jihad is to be carried out until all lands are liberated

from unbelievers and when all unbelievers submit to the rule of Islam.13

This view argues that verses on armed jihad in the Quran are revealed in

stages and God revealed verses of Chapter 9 of the Quran to finalize the last stage.

These last verses abrogate the earlier verses revealed on armed jihad, which state that

it is only permissible when Muslims are attacked.14

To support this view, its proponents in contemporary times often revive the

historical experience of the war of during the Crusades, colonialism, the persecution

of Palestinian Muslims by Israelis and the neglect of the international community

under the leadership of the United States, and recent developments related to the

attack on Afghanistan and Iraq by coalition forces.15

This view proposes the idea of perpetual war between Muslims and non-

Muslims that will only cease or end when all non-Muslims embrace Islam, fall under

the rule of the Muslim nation or enter into a peaceful agreement with Muslims.

Corollary to this view is the classification of state into Dar Al-Islam (Land of

Islam) and Dar Al-Harb (Land of War). Dar Al-Harb refers to lands other than Dar

Al-Islam. The use of Dar Al-Harb as a terminology to describe non-Muslim lands

suggests that all lands that are not Dar Al-Islam or does not submit to it should be

considered to be at war with it.16

According to proponents of this view, Muslims are not allowed to enter into

any permanent peace agreement with non-Dar Al-Islam states. If they do enter into

any peace agreement, the period of the agreement should not exceed ten years. They

13 Majid Khadduri, The Islamic Law of Nations: Shaybani’s Siyar (pp. 16–7), Baltimore: The John Hopkins Press, 1966,; Abdul Karim Zaidan, Majmu`ah Buhuts Fiqhiyah (pp. 44–7), Beirut: Muassasah Ar-Risalah, 1982, cited in Muhammad Khair Haykal, Al-Jihad Wa Al-Qital Fi As-Siyasah Asy-Syariyah (Vol. 1, p. 821), Beirut: Dar Al-Bayariq, 1993; Sayyid Qutb, Fi Zilal Al-Quran (Vol. 3, pp. 1586–91), Beirut: Dar Asy-Syuruq, 1985,. See also Sayyid Qutb’s commentary on offensive jihad in the same book on p. 1431–52. 14 Ibid. 15 Sayyid Qutb, Fi Zilal Al-Quran (Vol. 3, p. 1593). 16 James Turner Johnson, “Jihad and Just War”, First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion & Public Life, 124, Jun/Jul, 2002, pp. 12–4.

5

argue that such a position makes the obligation of armed jihad against non-Muslims

redundant.17 However, some view that the period of any peace agreement between

Muslims and non-Muslims is at discretion of the Muslim ruler.

Peace as the basis

Another view suggests that peace and harmony is the basis for relationship, not war.18

The view argues that the claim of the final stages of armed jihad abrogating all the

previous stages is unfounded and not supported by prominent classical Muslim

scholars.19

The prevalent opinion is that all verses on jihad cannot be interpreted

independently of each other. All the verses on jihad in Islam need to be studied

together and reconciled to derive the true understanding of jihad in Islam. In this

respect, Muslim scholars agree that verses that are general and unconditional must be

interpreted as conditional.20

Classical Muslim scholars like Abu Hanifah and Ahmad b. Hanbal also argue

that, except for verse 29, the verses of Chapter 9 of the Quran refer specifically to the

Arab pagans of that time.21 Some of them are more specific by saying that the verses

were revealed only to the people of Mecca or Quraisy.22 An-Nawawi, among many

17 Majid Khadduri, The Islamic Law of Nations: Shaybani’s Siyar (pp. 17–8, 142). 18 Among scholars who also advocate such view are Wahbah Az-Zuhaili, Muhammad Rashid Ridha and Muhammad Abu Zahrah. See Muhammad Rashid Ridha, Al-Wahy Al-Muhammadi (p. 240), Cairo: Maktabah Al-Qaherah, 1960; Muhammad Abu Zahrah, Al-Ilaqat Ad-Dauliyah Fi Al-Islam (pp. 47–52), Cairo: Ad-Dar Al-Qaumiyah, 1964,; Wahbah Az-Zuhaili, Atsar Al-Harb Fi Fiqh Al-Islami (pp. 113–4), Damascus: Dar Al-Fikr, date not cited, cited in Muhammad Khair Haykal, Al-Jihad Wa Al-Qital Fi As-Siyasah Asy-Syariyah (pp. 821–3). 19 Wahbah Az-Zuhaili, At-Tafsir Al-Munir Fi Al-`Aqidah wa Al-Shari`ah wa Al-Manhaj (Illuminating Interpretation Regarding Belief, Law & Approach) (Vol. 10, pp. 110, 175–8), Damascus: Dar Al-Fikr, 1991; Louay Safi, Peace and the Limits of War: Transcending Classical Conception of Jihad, Chapter 4 – War of Domination, available at home.att.net/~louaysafi/articles/2001/peace-war/index.htm (Accessed 2 October 2006); Muhammad b. Ahmad Al-Qurtubi, Al-Jami’ Lli Ahkam Al-Quran (Vol. 4, Part 8, p. 47), Beirut: Dar Al-Kutub Al-Arabiyah, 1988,; Ismail bin Katsir, Tafsir Ibn Katsir (Vol. 2, p. 338), place not cited, Dar Al-Fikr, 1980,; Muhammad bin Jarir At-Tabari, Jami’ Al-Bayan `An Takwil Ayi Al-Quran (Vol. 6, Part 10, p. 80–1; Vol. 13, Part 26, pp. 40–4), Beirut: Dar Al-Fikr, 1984,. 20 Abu Ishaq Asy-Syatibi, Al-Muwafaqat Fi Usul Al-Fiqh (Vol. 3, pp. 97–8, 233–5), Beirut: Dar Al-Makrifah, 1997,; Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali, Al-Mustasfa Min Ilm Al-Usul (Vol. 2, pp. 48–50), Beirut: Dar Ihya’ At-Turats Al-Arabi, 1997,; Muhamamad bin Ali Asy-Syaukani, Irsyad Al-Fuhul Ila Tahqiq Al-Haq Min Ilm Al-Usul (Vol. 1, pp. 532–4, 475), Beirut: Dar Al-Kutub Al-Ilmiyah, 1999,. 21 Wahbah Az-Zuhaili, Al-Tafsir Al-Munir Fi Al-`Aqidah wa Al-Shari`ah wa Al-Manhaj (Illuminating Interpretation Regarding Belief, Law & Approach) (Vol. 10, p 108–9); Muhammad Khair Haykal, Al-Jihad wa Al-Qital fi As-Siyasah Asy-Syariyah (Vol. 3, pp. 1456–7). 22 Muhammad b. Ahmad Al-Qurtubi, Al-Jami’li Ahkam Al-Quran (Vol. 4, Part 8, p. 42); Muhammad bin Jarir At-Tabari, Jami’ Al-Bayan `An Takwil Ayi Al-Quran (Vol. 6, Part 10, pp. 61, 77; Ismail bin Katsir, Tafsir Ibn Katsir (Vol. 2, p. 338).

6

other scholars, writes that the verse does not refer to the People of the Book (Jews and

Christians).23 Thus, it is inappropriate to apply these verses to all non-Muslims today.

In addition to that, the study of verses on jihad must not be detached from the

historical context of the time they were revealed.24 The classification was an attempt

made by Muslim scholars during the classical period to interpret their context and to

implement certain Islamic laws of which the application differed, depending on the

country where Muslims lived.

The context that influenced those Muslim scholars was constant war between

Muslims and non-Muslims (the Romans and the Persians). Those Muslim scholars felt

that it was important to classify countries to ensure that laws pertaining to jihad were

applied to the correct situation and place. It also helped them to issue fatwa according

to the appropriate social and political environment. It is a fundamental principle in

Islamic law that syariah is implemented with due consideration of the context.25

The concept was influenced by the codification period of Islamic law. It was a

period where Muslims were dominant in the international political scene. The

classification bore the psychological element of human beings in such a context—a

sense of superiority above others.

The political culture between states during the classical period also played an

important part in the construction of the binary classification. States in the previous

centuries had a stronger tendency to use war as the preferred means of solving a

problem or conflict. History has on record rulers who went to war over trivial issues.

This attitude was prevalent in the political scene and thus affected the perspectives of

Muslim legal scholars.

Proponents of the second view argue that the objective of armed jihad is not to

fight non-Muslims because of difference in faith but to establish justice and eradicate

oppression,26 and armed jihad in Islam can only be waged against those who wage

war.27 Like other major religions, the essence of Islam is peace, love, mercy and

23 Muhyiddin An-Nawawi, Al-Minhaj: Syarh Sahih Muslim (Vol. 1, p. 156), Beirut: Dar Al-Makrifah, no date cited,; see also Mustafa Al-Bugha, and Muhyiddin Al-Mistu, Al-Wafi: Fi Syarh Al-Arba`iin An-Nawawiyah (p. 47), Damascus: Dar Al-Ulum Al-Insaniyah, date not cited,. 24 “Does the Quran teach violence?”, IslamOnline, 3 May 2005, available at www.islam-online.net/fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=51761 (Accessed 2 October 2006). 25 Tariq Ramadan, To Be a European Muslim (p. 123–4); Louay Safi, Peace And The Limits Of War: Transcending Classical Conception Of Jihad, Chapter 3 – Peace Is The Essence, available at home.att.net/~louaysafi/articles/2001/peace-war/index.htm (Accessed 2 October 2006). 26 The Quran, 22:40. 27 The Quran, 22:39, 40, 2:193, 4:75, 2:194, 2:190.

7

compassion.28 Islam forbids violence and the shedding of human blood.29 War cannot

be used to win over non-Muslims to Islam. In Islam, there is no compulsion in

religion.30 Diversity and difference in faith is part of God’s creation.31 Muslims are

called upon to accept the diversity and live with it.32

They also argue that the notion—that is, the Muslims’ duty to wage war

against all non-Muslims—is inconsistent with the various rulings forbidding the

killing of non-Muslims who are not involved in war—children, women and priests or

others who have ceased to be combatants, such as prisoners of war.33 If a difference in

faith is sufficient to justify the killing of non-Muslims, there would have been no need

for such prohibition. Children, women, priest or prisoners of war should just be killed,

unless they embrace Islam.34

They also note that the classification of states according to Dar Al-Islam and

Dar Al-Harb did not originate from the Quran. Nowhere in the Quran is such a

classification mentioned explicitly. Neither is there any reference to it in the Sunnah

of the Prophet Muhammad. Thus, there is no divinity to the classification.35

Furthermore, Dar Al-Islam and Dar Al-Harb are not the only classifications found in

the writing of Muslim scholars. Islamic terminology is full of many other

classifications, such as Dar Al’Ahd (Land of Covenant), Dar Al-Sulh (Land of Truce)

and Dar Al-Kufr (Land of Unbelief), among other.

Also in the classical work, Zaidiyah’s school of jurisprudence differentiates

between Dar Al-Kufr (Land of Disbelief) and Dar Al-Harb. Zaidiyah views that Dar

28 The Quran, 21:107. 29 The Quran, 5:32. 30 The Quran, 2:256, 10:99. 31 The Quran, 49:13, 5:48, 11:118–9, 10:99–100. 32 Muhammad Haniff Hassan (Ed.), Moderation in Islam in the Context of Muslim Community in Singapore (pp. 187–223); Muhammad Haniff Hassan, “Response to Jihadis’ View of Jihad: A Sample Approach to Counter Ideology Work” in Rohan Gunaratna (Ed.), Combating Terrorism (pp. 85–112); Sheikh Faisal Mawlawi, Al-Mafahim Al-Asasiah Li Ad-Da`wah Al-Islamiah Fi Bilad Al-Gharb, available at www.mawlawi.net/Kutub.asp?cid=109&cc=aaa (Accessed 2 October 2006). 33 The Quran, 47:4. 34 Louay Safi, Peace and the Limits of War: Transcending Classical Conception of Jihad, Chapter 4 – War against oppression and Chapter 2 – Peaceful Coexistence: Abbysinia And Islam, available at home.att.net/~louaysafi/articles/2001/peace-war/index.htm (Accessed 2 October 2006); Abdul Hamid A. Abu Sulayman, Towards an Islamic Theory of International Relations: New Directions for Methodology and Thought (p. 24), Riyadh: International Islamic Publishing House, 1993. 35 Sheikh `Atiyyah Saqr, Fatwa: Concept of Dar Al-Islam and Dar Al-Harb, available at www.islam-online.net/fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=51640 (Accessed 2 October 2006); Tariq Ramadan, To Be a European Muslim (pp. 123, 130); James Turner Johnson, “Jihad and Just War”, First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion & Public Life, pp. 12–4.

8

Al-Kufr is a land where a non-Islamic system prevails but is not necessarily hostile to

Muslims.36

Furthermore, the contemporary context requires the restructuring of Muslim

political praxis from a scheme of permanent warfare against non-Muslims to one that

includes protracted truces, formal diplomatic relationships and membership in the

international community of nation-states because any Muslim-ruled polity that is a

member of the United Nations is, by default, in a peaceful agreement with all other

members of the United Nations by way of the United Nations Charter.37

Finally, they say that history has witnessed the peaceful spread of Islam and

peaceful coexistence of Muslims with non-Muslims in China and Southeast Asia.38

There is no need for the idea of perpetual armed jihad for the purpose of sharing the

message of Islam to non-Muslims.

When a Muslim state is not at war with another state because of a peaceful

agreement between them, Islam requires such a relationship to be based on the

commitment to the peace agreement, international convention and peaceful

coexistence;39 non-aggression and non-interference in the internal affairs of any

state;40 cooperation for common good;41 respect for differences of cultures and

civilizations;42 justice for all and equal treatment and equal opportunity to all nations

to participate in building the world order and in formulating the standard of

international conduct, principles and norms.

The proponents of war as the basis of relationship Muslim and non-Muslim

polity view that difference of faith is a just cause to wage war against non-Muslims

36 Ismail Lutfi Fatani, Ikhtilaf Ad-Darain wa Atsaruhu fi Ahkam Al-Munakahat wa Al-Muamalat (p. 74), Cairo: Dar As-Salam, 1998. 37 Khalid Yahya Blankinship, The End of the Jihad State: The Reign of Hisham b. Abd al-Malik and the Collapse of the Umayyads (pp. 6–9), New York: State University of New York Press, 1994, , cited in Zaid Shakir, “Jihad is not perpetual warfare”, Seasons (p. 55), Autumn-Winter, 2003–4, California: Zaytuna Institute, available also at www.zaytuna.org/seasons/seasons2/53-64%20Seasons.pdf (Accessed 2 October 2006). 38 See Malise Ruthven (Ed.), Historical Atlas of Islam (pp. 122–3), Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004,; John L. Esposito (Ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern Islamic World (Vol. 2, pp. 271–7), New York: Oxford University Press,; Richard C. Martin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim World (pp. 187–9), New York: Thomson-Gale, 2004,; “Islam’s Lasting Connection in China”, China Daily, 20 May 2003, available at www.china.org.cn/english/culture/65049.htm (Accessed 2 October 2006); see “Islam in China”, BBC, available at www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/china_1.shtml (Accessed 2 October 2006). 39 The Quran, 8:61, 5:1, 2:177. 40 The Quran, 4:90, 8:72. 41 The Quran, 5:2. 42 The Quran, 49:13.

9

until they become Muslims or accept the rule of Islam. However, the proponents of

peace as the basis of relationship view that there must be an act of hostility that

amounts to an act of war. A mere difference of faith is not a just cause to wage war.

Despite the differences on the just cause of war, both thoughts view that no

individual or groups are allowed to wage war or armed jihad in the name of Islam or

for the community. War always affects the public at large so the principle of

consultation taught by Islam requires proper mandate from the people. The most

suitable people to hold such a mandate are those who are mandated to be the

government. Only in a situation where the government has collapsed are Muslims

allowed to organize themselves collectively to fight against any aggression, as what

happened in Afghanistan during the invasion by former Soviet Union.

Both thoughts also agree that Muslims are guided by the rule of

proportionality, based on the prohibition against any transgression and extremism.

The rule of proportionality is also invoked in some of rulings pertaining to the Islamic

code of conduct in war that prohibits Muslims from certain acts such as the

unnecessary cutting down of trees or destruction of buildings, animals and places of

worship for Muslims and non-Muslims. Based on this principle, contemporary

Muslim scholars issue the prohibition against weapons of mass destruction. While

Islam commands Muslims to fight injustice and evil, it does not allow Muslims to do

it in a way that will cause an equal or greater evil or injustice. The most important

aspect of the code of armed jihad in Islam is the prohibition of the killing of civilians

and non-combatants in war.

They also view that armed jihad may only be waged if the benefit derived

from it is bigger than the harm it inflicts in relation to the objective it wants to

achieve, that is, the just cause. If the harm outweighs the benefits, then Islam does not

condone it. Muslims are required to make due consideration between its advantages

and disadvantages. Thus, in principle, resorting to war is only allowed if it brings

greater good or prevents greater evil.

Neutrality as the basis

Neutrality here refers to a status accorded by international law to a state that “abstains

from all participation in a war, and maintains an attitude of impartiality in its dealings

10

with the belligerents”.43 There are two types of neutrality in international law: (a)

permanent neutrality as practised by countries like Switzerland, Sweden, Austria and

Finland; (b) non-permanent neutrality where a state proclaims neutrality in a given

war.44

The Quran’s position on neutrality is not as clear as its position on war and

peace. For example, the Quran makes a clear statement that allows Muslims to carry

arms against those who wage war against them45 and commands Muslims to accept

peace when it is offered.46

However, the issue of neutrality can be inferred from some implicit verses in

the Quran. In Chapter 9, verse 4, Muslims are commanded not to harm people who

have not helped the enemies of Islam in their fight against Muslims. By calling for

them not to be harmed, the Quran recognizes their neutral stand in the conflict and

therefore made provision for neutrality to be permissible in Islam. This deduction is

further strengthened by other verses of the Quran dealing on the same issue but more

clearly:

Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty

(of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them

from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. If Allah had

pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would

have fought you: Therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you

not, and (instead) send you (Guarantees of) peace, then Allah Hath

opened no way for you (to war against them). Others you will find that

wish to gain your confidence as well as that of their people: Every time

they are sent back to temptation, they succumb thereto: if they

withdraw not from you nor give you (guarantees) of peace besides

restraining their hands, seize them and slay them wherever ye get

them: In their case We have provided you with a clear argument

against them.” (The Quran, 4:90–91)

The word “i’itizal” (withdraw, emphasized above) that the verses were referring to

presents the concept of neutrality as it means not involving oneself in the ongoing 43 Lawrence Preuss, “The concepts of neutrality and nonbelligerency”, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 218, November 1941, p. 100. 44 Cathal J. Nolan (Ed.), The Greenwood Encylopedia of International Relations (Vol. III, p. 1145), London: Greenwood Publishing, 2002 45 The Quran, 22:39–40, 2:190–3, 4:75 46 The Quran, 8:61.

11

conflict. The word itself has been used in classical Arabic to indicate a tribe’s

abstention from taking side with any parties in conflict.47

In a hadith (the Prophet’s traditions), the Prophet is reported to have described

a war between two Muslim factions and was asked by one of his companion, “What

do you order me to do if such a state of affairs should take place in my life?” He

answered, “Remain with the group of Muslims and their Imam (ruler).” The

companion asked, “If there is neither a group of Muslims nor an Imam (ruler)?” The

Prophet answered, “Then turn away from all those sects even if you have to bite (eat)

the roots of a tree (for survival), till death comes while you are in that state.”48 Again,

the word “i’itizal” was used by the Prophet when he suggested that Muslims shun all

the warring factions.

It is not surprising, later on, when acting out the commandment contained in

this this hadith, many companions of the Prophet chose to remain neutral when the

war between Ali and Muawiyah erupted.

The same neutral stand was also adopted by Banu Quraizah, a Jewish tribe in a

war between the Prophet and the Jewish tribe of Banu Nadhir. Banu Quraizah

remained neutral by refusing to render any help to Banu Nadhir. In one of the military

expeditions sent by the Prophet against the Byzantine territory of Mu’tah in north

Arabia, Banu Ghanam, a branch of the Hadas tribe, chose to remain neutral even

though others fought against the Muslims. In both incidents, the Prophet honoured the

neutrality of the parties.49

Thus, it can be concluded that neutrality is permissible in Islam based on the

practices of the Prophet, although the Quran did not mentioned it explicitly. This is

further strengthened by the practices of the third caliph after the Prophet in his treaty

with the Nubian. The treaty stated, “We (Muslims) shall not wage war against you,

nor prepare for war against you, nor attack you so long as you observe the conditions

of the treaty between us and you… . But it will not be incumbent upon the Muslims to

47 Muhammad Hamidullah, Muslim Conduct of State (pp. 284–8), Lahore: Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, 1987. 48 Al-Bukhari, Sahih Al-Bukhari, available at hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?Doc=0&Rec=10553 (Accessed 14 August 2006) 49 Ibn Hisyam, Sirah Ibn Hisyam, Vol. 2, available at sirah.al-islam.com/display.asp?f=hes2496.htm (Accessed 14 August 2006); Al-Waqidi, Al-Maghazi, Vol. 1, available at sirah.al-islam.com/display.asp?f=mga1317.htm (Accessed 14 August 2006).

12

drive away any enemy who may encounter you, nor to prevent him from you, between

the limits of the territory of ’Ulwah and Aswan.”50

However, the above evidence points out neutrality within a specific context

only. They do not refer to permanent neutrality as mentioned above. This by any

measure is not comprehensive enough to enable a neutral party to adopt it in

contemporary practice. The element that is lacking is that there is no detailed

provision covering the rights and duties of the neutral for contemporary practices.

In this respect, it should be pointed out, firstly, that Muslim scholars have

agreed that matters pertaining to war are the responsibility of Ulil Amri (a legitimate

authority). The guiding Islamic jurisprudence maxim for Muslim rulers in executing

their power is tasarruf al-imam ala ar-ra’iyyah manutun bi al-maslahah or the

conduct of a ruler towards his subject is based on what is in their best interest.51 In

other words, the ruler is given the mandate to make an independent judgement

(ijtihad) after consulting competent people among the population on the issue of

neutrality.

Secondly, the principles of Islamic jurisprudence recognize customs and

conventions as secondary sources of the law as long they do not contravene any

principles of syariah and fulfil all conditions of valid customs in Islam.52 There are

various Islamic jurisprudence maxims pertaining to the use of customs as a source of

law: Al-`Adah muhkamah [Custom is a binding law]; Ats-Tsabit bi al-`urf ka ats-tsabit

bi asy-syara’ [What is established by custom is similar to what is established by

syar’ii proof, that is, the Quran, hadiths (Prophet’s tradition) and other recognized

sources of law]; and Al-Ma’ruf `urfan ka al-masyrut syartan [Validity of an accepted

custom is similar to validity of a stipulated agreement].53

Thirdly, Islam recognizes the importance of context in the formulation and

implementation of the law. Due recognition of customs as mentioned above is one

example. It has also been agreed by all Muslim scholars that the law should be

tailored, adjusted and changed according to changes of time and place.54 The maxim

says “La yunkaru taghayyuru fatwa wa ijtihad wa hukm bi taghayyuri az-zaman wa

50 Muhammad Hamidullah, Muslim Conduct of State (p. 293). 51 Jalal Ad-Din As-Suyuti, Al-Asybah Wa An-Nazair (p. 83); Muhammad Sidqi bin Ahmad Al-Burno, Al-Wajiz Fi Idhah Qawa`id Al-Fiqh Al-Kulliyah (p. 347), Beirut: Muassasah Ar-Risalah, 1996. 52 Muhammad Hashim Kamali, Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence (pp. 283–95). 53 Jalal Ad-Din As-Suyuti, Al-Asybah Wa An-Nazair (pp. 63–7); Muhammad Sidqi b. Ahmad Al-Burno, Al-Wajiz Fi Iidhah Qawa`id Al-Fiqh Al-Kulliyyah (pp. 270, 306). 54 Ibn Qayyim Al-Jauzi, Ighatsah Al-Lahfan Fi Ma`abid Asy-Syaitan (Vol. 1, p. 488).

13

al-makan” [Change of fatwa, ijtihad and rule is permissible with the change of time

and place].55

Fourthly, all Muslim rulers from Muslim countries have ratified the relevant

conventions and Islam commands Muslims to honour any agreement or contracts that

they have entered into.

Based on the above four points, it can be argued that international law, treaties

and customs that do not contradict Islamic principles can provide the needed

clarification on the issue of neutrality for contemporary Muslims. As a matter of fact,

current practices, customs and context are elements too important for Muslims to

ignore in their conduct of state.

Although the Quran and the hadiths are not definitive on the issue of

permanent neutrality, this paper argues that it is permissible in Islam. It is not

obligatory but an option worth considering in the best interest of the people.

On the contrary, some of the proponents of war as the basis of relationship

between a Muslim and non-Muslim state view permanent neutrality that has no

specific timeframe as impermissible. They argue along the same line that concludes in

the impermissibility of any permanent peace agreement with a non-Dar Al-Islam

state.

Basis of Relationship Between Dar Al-Islam and Another Dar Al-Islam

Traditionally, Muslim scholars viewed all Dar Al-Islam as one undifferentiated

category. Although, in reality, Muslim lands can be divided into several sovereign and

independent political entities but such differentiation is only in form. From the

Islamic jurisprudence viewpoint, they are one nation that cannot be divided based on

artificial geographical boundaries or ethnicity.56

The majority of traditional Muslim scholars view that Islam does not permit

the existence of multiple Dar Al-Islam and it is not permissible to appoint two Muslim

rulers in the same period.57 This is because Islam enjoins unity and forbids the

opposite.58

55 Muhammad Sidqi b. Ahmad Al-Burnu, Al-Wajiz Fi Iidhah Qawa`id Al-Fiqh Al-Kulliyyah (p. 310); see Muhammad Haniff Hassan, Unlicensed to Kill: Countering Imam Samudra’s Justification for the Bali Bombing (p. 123). 56 Ismail Lutfi Fatani, Ikhtilaf Ad-Darain wa Atsaruhu fi Ahkam Al-Munakahat wa Al-Muamalat (pp. 84). 57 Al-Mawardi, Al-Ahkam As-Sultaniyah (p. 8), Surabaya: Syarikah Bankul Indah, no date cited. 58 The Quran, 49:10, 3:103.

14

The current practice in Muslim lands is excusable based on the Islamic

jurisprudence maxim that states that “dharurat (emergencies) permit the prohibited”.

However, the maxim is qualified by another maxim which states that a “situation that

creates emergency must be eliminated”. Muslims, thus, are obligated to rectify the

situation or overcome the dharurat as the maxim dictates. On that respect,

permissibility of multiple independent Dar Al-Islam must be regarded as a temporary

ruling only, and Muslims should not feel pleased with such situation.59

Dar Al-Islam is the land for all Muslims but non-Muslims can be its citizens.

All Muslims are obliged to fend off any hostility and defend any Dar Al-Islam. The

obligation can become a fardhu ain (personal obligation) upon all Muslims when the

enemy occupies any part of Dar Al-Islam. All Muslims are to support the mission of

Dar Al-Islam, that is, to spread Islam and implement syariah in other lands.60

Based on the above, the basis of relationship between different Dar Al-Islam

of Muslim states must always be peace. War is only permissible against those who

transgress God’s rule after all peaceful means have been exhausted.61

Concluding Remarks

From a theological perspective, an Islamic polity has three options as the original

basis of relations with non-Dar Al-Islam: perpetual armed jihad, peace or neutrality.

Its relationship with a Dar Al-Islam, however, must be based on peace only.

The proponents of peace as the original basis of relations argue that the

emergence of the idea of perpetual armed jihad in the classical period was due to the

historical experience of Muslims—a prolonged conflict with the Romans and

Persians. They also suggest that war being always used in the past as a means to

pursue security and power (due to the political culture of international relations then)

had influenced the thinking of Muslim scholars in the early period in putting forth the

idea of perpetual armed jihad.

This writer shares the view held by the proponents of peace as the primary

basis of inter-state relations for Islamic polity. In addition to the argument presented,

this writer believes that the idea of war as the primary basis of Islamic polity’s inter-

state relations that put Islam and Muslims in a state of perpetual war with the others

59 Ibid, p. 93. 60 Ibid, pp. 70–2. 61 The Quran, 49:9, 5:33.

15

negates the very fundamental message of Islam as the religion of peace, harmony,

tolerance and virtuous existence, as strongly indicated by the following teachings of

Islam.

Islam is a religion of peace. This is, firstly, by virtue of its name that is derived

from the verb “aslama”, which means, “to submit, surrender” and it is derived from

the root word “salm” or “silm”, which means “peace, security”.62 Secondly, the

greetings that Muslims are enjoined to convey to others is “Assalamualaikum”, which

means “peace be upon you”. Thirdly, the Quran prefers peace to conflict.63 Fourthly,

history has proven that Islam is better accepted during peacetime and through

peaceful means. The Hudaibiyah Accord serves as a powerful demonstration of this:

record numbers of people came to Islam in the consequent two peaceful years, so

much ao that it was almost the same as the total for the preceding 19 years of the

Prophet’s mission. History has also shown that Islam has the potential to spread

rapidly via peaceful methods as it did in the Malay Archipelago and in China.

Therefore, establishing and maintaining peace and the use of peaceful means

to convey the message of Islam are of importance to Islam. On that note, peaceful

coexistence with other faiths and culture is enjoined upon Muslims. It is a means and

a manifestation of their commitment to peace and serves better the objective of

sharing the message of Islam.

Islam regards diversity and plurality as a natural state of God’s creations. For

example, the Quran states that God created the different sexes and ethnic groups

among mankind64 for positive reasons, that is, to know and understand each other.65

Even fruits, though of one type, may look and taste different.66 Muslims are enjoined

to embrace diversity and, thus, tolerance for diversity becomes a fundamental

teaching of Islam. This is then manifested through Islam’s command for respect of

other faiths, non-interference in matters of other religions67, prohibition of any form

of compulsion and coercion in matters of faith68 and rebuking or insulting other

62 Al-Mu’jam Al-Wasit, Majma’ 3rd edition (pp. 462–3), Cairo: Al-Lughah Al-`Arabiyah,, no date cited; Rohi Baalbaki, Al-Mawrid: A Modern Arabic-English Dictionary (pp. 107, 641), Beirut: Dar Al-`Ilm Li Al-Malayiin, 2001; J. M. Cowan (Ed.), The Hans Wehr Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic (pp. 424–5), New York: Spoken Languages Services, 1976. 63 The Quran, 8:61. 64 The Quran, 30:22. 65 The Quran, 49:13. 66 The Quran, 6:141–2. 67 The Quran, 109:1–6. 68 The Quran, 2:256, 272, 10:99.

16

faiths69, which become the basis for peaceful co-existence of the various faiths in

society. Islam requires acceptance of faith based on free choice.70 Intolerance

inevitably produces conflict. This does not go well with the claim that Islam is

religion of peace.

Since conflict produces hardship and difficulty, this negates another important

character of Islam, that is, a religion of simplicity, practical and easy.71 The following

can also be found from the Prophet’s tradition that reinforces the Quranic message of

tolerance, practical and realistic. There are many hadiths (prophetic tradition) that

point to the same character. One of them is, “Make it convenient and do not make it

difficult, tell them the good news and do not make them run away” (Narrated by Al-

Bukhari).

The idea that Muslims are obligated to wage war perpetually against all non-

Muslims and, as a corollary to it, against all un-Islamic polity is only plausible if one

accepts that all non-Muslims are fundamentally hostile towards Islam and will never

cease conspiring against it, subverting it, trying to subjugate it and fighting it when

there is opportunity that underlies the idea. This also means that Muslims are allowed

to hold prejudiced views and negative stereotypes towards all non-Muslims. All these

do not sit well with the message of the Quran and rational thinking. In line with the

rule of diversity, the Quran enjoins a differentiated view, not only towards Muslims

but also towards non-Muslims. In the Quran, both Muslims and non-Muslims are

constantly described as non-homogenous groups. God accords each kind of them their

own status and ruling.72 There are many verses in the Quran that mentions non-

Muslims positively.73

From rational thinking, prejudice and stereotype towards non-Muslims as

mentioned above is no different from the misconception among some non-Muslims

that all Muslims are terrorists and fundamentalists. It is highly questionable when

Muslims argue against non-Muslims’ stereotyped perception towards Muslims but at

the same time are guilty of stereotyping all non-Muslims as bad and villainous.

Based on the above arguments and the role of context in shaping the view of

Muslim scholars during the classical period as illustrated in the section that touched

69 The Quran, 6:108. 70 The Quran, 18:29. 71 The Quran, 2:185, 5:6, 22:78. 72 The Quran, 8:72–5, 35:32, 4:95, 60:8–9. 73 The Quran, 2:62, 5:69, 82.

17

on peace as the basis of relationship with the objective of ensuring the security of a

Dar Al-Islam, this writer holds that the idea of perpetual armed jihad is just a

theological construct offered by the scholars in that period, not a divine injunction, in

response to the prevailing reality of a international system that is anarchic and during

which war as an important instrument of power and security predominated. In this

respect, one can find supporting arguments from conventional international relations

tradition such as offensive realism, which holds that the anarchic international system

provides strong incentives for states to continuously strive for maximum

accumulation of power in relation to other states because security is best guaranteed

by achieving a hegemonic power. In doing so, states pursue expansionist policies

when and where the benefits of doing so outweigh the costs. A non-hegemonic power

in an anarchic international system is in constant worry that other states will use force

to harm or conquer.74

Although the idea of perpetual armed jihad as the basis of inter-state relations

is worrying and disturbing from both conventional international relations and a

contemporary Islamic jurisprudence point of view, there is no evidence to show that

any of Muslim state subscribes to it or based its foreign policy on it, even for

countries like Saudi Arabia and the Islamic Republic of Iran, which are known for

their strong Islamist ideology.

Many of the conflicts that involved Muslim countries are motivated by

realpolitik or local grievances rather than ideology in nature. The scale and regularity

of the armed conflicts lack the kind that is motivated by an “imperial ambition”, as

exemplified by Saddam Hussein’s war against Iran and his occupation of Kuwait. The

number of conflicts between Muslim countries and the nature of alliance also do not

point to the idea of perpetual armed jihad. Muslim countries are in constant alliance

with non-Muslim superpowers to ensure their security, rather than allying among

themselves to subdue the un-Islamic polity.

For now, one can say that the cause of worry from the idea of perpetual armed

jihad currently comes from non-state actors, the most prominent of them being Al-

Qaeda. A study of Al-Qaeda’s ideology will show that the political dimension of

Islam is an essential aspect of it. Violence is a tool to achieve political objectives,

which are the establishment of the Islamic caliphate or Islamic state, to facilitate the 74 Jeffrey W. Taliaferro, “Security seeking under anarchy: Defensive realism revisited”, International Security, pp. 128–9.

18

implementation of syariah law and subjugation of non-Muslims under the rule of

Muslims. These necessitate armed rebellion against infidel or apostate governments.75

Finally, the idea of perpetual armed jihad to subdue all un-Islamic polity is not

much different from any form of imperial ambition that has existed throughout

history. The former is based on Islamic theology while the latter could be based on

any rational ideology or religious tradition. This is to suggest that, not only is Islam

the single source of imperial ambition, but also eradicating the idea of perpetual

armed jihad does not eliminate the emergence of imperial ambition from any polity.

In fact, offensive realism, as mentioned before, suggests that imperial ambition as a

means to achieve hegemonic power that guarantees security is a natural response to

the reality of international politics.

75 “Bin Laden’s fatwa”, PBS Online Newshour, August 1996; “Nas bayan Al-Jabhah Al-Islamiyah Al-Alamiyah Li Jihad Al-Yahud Wa As-Salibiyin”, Al-Quds Al-Arabi, 23 February 1998; Tayseer Alouni’s interview with Usamah bin Laden, Al-Jazeera, October 2001; “Text of Osama bin Laden’s statement”, AP, 9 Oct 2001; “Bin Laden rails against Crusaders and UN”, BBC News, 3 November 2001; “Bin Laden’s warning: full text”, BBC News, 7 October 2001; Sout Al-Jihad, No. 3, 1424H, p. 18, 25–30; No. 7, 1424H, p. 26–7; No. 19, 1425H, p. 37–8; No. 18, 1425H, p. 46–7. Muhammad Abdul Salam Al-Farj, Al-Jihad: Al-Faridhah Al-Ghaibah (Jihad: The Neglected Obligation), p. 16, available at www.e-prism.org/images/ALFAREDA.doc (Accessed 2 October 2006). Al-Farj was a leader of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad Organisation which Ayman Az-Zawahiri also belongs to before its merger with Al-Qaedah. The book was the organization primary reference of its ideology; Al-Qaeda in Iraq, Limaza Nuqatil? Man Nuqatil? (Why we fight? Who we fight?), available at www.tawhed.ws/r?i=3421 (Accessed 2 October 2006); Hamd bin Abdullah Al-Humaidi, Hatta La Tasma’ Li Al-Jihad Munadiyan (So you will not hear a caller of jihad), 8 Jumada Al-Ula 1423H, available at www.tawhed.ws/r?i=749 (Accessed 2 October 2006).

19

IDSS Working Paper Series

1. Vietnam-China Relations Since The End of The Cold War Ang Cheng Guan

(1998)

2. Multilateral Security Cooperation in the Asia-Pacific Region: Prospects and Possibilities Desmond Ball

(1999)

3. Reordering Asia: “Cooperative Security” or Concert of Powers? Amitav Acharya

(1999)

4. The South China Sea Dispute re-visited Ang Cheng Guan

(1999)

5. Continuity and Change In Malaysian Politics: Assessing the Buildup to the 1999-2000 General Elections Joseph Liow Chin Yong

(1999)

6. ‘Humanitarian Intervention in Kosovo’ as Justified, Executed and Mediated by NATO: Strategic Lessons for Singapore Kumar Ramakrishna

(2000)

7. Taiwan’s Future: Mongolia or Tibet? Chien-peng (C.P.) Chung

(2001)

8. Asia-Pacific Diplomacies: Reading Discontinuity in Late-Modern Diplomatic Practice Tan See Seng

(2001)

9. Framing “South Asia”: Whose Imagined Region? Sinderpal Singh

(2001)

10. Explaining Indonesia's Relations with Singapore During the New Order Period: The Case of Regime Maintenance and Foreign Policy Terence Lee Chek Liang

(2001)

11. Human Security: Discourse, Statecraft, Emancipation Tan See Seng

(2001)

12. Globalization and its Implications for Southeast Asian Security: A Vietnamese Perspective Nguyen Phuong Binh

(2001)

13. Framework for Autonomy in Southeast Asia’s Plural Societies Miriam Coronel Ferrer

(2001)

14. Burma: Protracted Conflict, Governance and Non-Traditional Security Issues Ananda Rajah

(2001)

15. Natural Resources Management and Environmental Security in Southeast Asia: Case Study of Clean Water Supplies in Singapore Kog Yue Choong

(2001)

16. Crisis and Transformation: ASEAN in the New Era Etel Solingen

(2001)

17. Human Security: East Versus West? Amitav Acharya

(2001)

18. Asian Developing Countries and the Next Round of WTO Negotiations Barry Desker

(2001)

19. Multilateralism, Neo-liberalism and Security in Asia: The Role of the Asia Pacific Economic Co-operation Forum Ian Taylor

(2001)

20. Humanitarian Intervention and Peacekeeping as Issues for Asia-Pacific Security Derek McDougall

(2001)

21. Comprehensive Security: The South Asian Case S.D. Muni

(2002)

22. The Evolution of China’s Maritime Combat Doctrines and Models: 1949-2001 You Ji

(2002)

23. The Concept of Security Before and After September 11 a. The Contested Concept of Security Steve Smith b. Security and Security Studies After September 11: Some Preliminary Reflections Amitav Acharya

(2002)

24. Democratisation In South Korea And Taiwan: The Effect Of Social Division On Inter-Korean and Cross-Strait Relations Chien-peng (C.P.) Chung

(2002)

25. Understanding Financial Globalisation Andrew Walter

(2002)

26. 911, American Praetorian Unilateralism and the Impact on State-Society Relations in Southeast Asia Kumar Ramakrishna

(2002)

27. Great Power Politics in Contemporary East Asia: Negotiating Multipolarity or Hegemony? Tan See Seng

(2002)

28. What Fear Hath Wrought: Missile Hysteria and The Writing of “America” Tan See Seng

(2002)

29. International Responses to Terrorism: The Limits and Possibilities of Legal Control of Terrorism by Regional Arrangement with Particular Reference to ASEAN Ong Yen Nee

(2002)

30. Reconceptualizing the PLA Navy in Post – Mao China: Functions, Warfare, Arms, and Organization Nan Li

(2002)

31. Attempting Developmental Regionalism Through AFTA: The Domestics Politics – Domestic Capital Nexus Helen E S Nesadurai

(2002)

32. 11 September and China: Opportunities, Challenges, and Warfighting Nan Li

(2002)

33. Islam and Society in Southeast Asia after September 11 Barry Desker

(2002)

34. Hegemonic Constraints: The Implications of September 11 For American Power Evelyn Goh

(2002)

35. Not Yet All Aboard…But Already All At Sea Over Container Security Initiative Irvin Lim

(2002)

36. Financial Liberalization and Prudential Regulation in East Asia: Still Perverse? Andrew Walter

(2002)

37. Indonesia and The Washington Consensus Premjith Sadasivan

(2002)

38. The Political Economy of FDI Location: Why Don’t Political Checks and Balances and Treaty Constraints Matter? Andrew Walter

(2002)

39. The Securitization of Transnational Crime in ASEAN Ralf Emmers

(2002)

40. Liquidity Support and The Financial Crisis: The Indonesian Experience J Soedradjad Djiwandono

(2002)

41. A UK Perspective on Defence Equipment Acquisition David Kirkpatrick

(2003)

42. Regionalisation of Peace in Asia: Experiences and Prospects of ASEAN, ARF and UN Partnership Mely C. Anthony

(2003)

43. The WTO In 2003: Structural Shifts, State-Of-Play And Prospects For The Doha Round Razeen Sally

(2003)

44. Seeking Security In The Dragon’s Shadow: China and Southeast Asia In The Emerging Asian Order Amitav Acharya

(2003)

45. Deconstructing Political Islam In Malaysia: UMNO’S Response To PAS’ Religio-Political Dialectic Joseph Liow

(2003)

46. The War On Terror And The Future of Indonesian Democracy Tatik S. Hafidz

(2003)

47. Examining The Role of Foreign Assistance in Security Sector Reforms: The Indonesian Case Eduardo Lachica

(2003)

48. Sovereignty and The Politics of Identity in International Relations Adrian Kuah

(2003)

49. Deconstructing Jihad; Southeast Asia Contexts Patricia Martinez

(2003)

50. The Correlates of Nationalism in Beijing Public Opinion Alastair Iain Johnston

(2003)

51. In Search of Suitable Positions’ in the Asia Pacific: Negotiating the US-China Relationship and Regional Security Evelyn Goh

(2003)

52. American Unilaterism, Foreign Economic Policy and the ‘Securitisation’ of Globalisation Richard Higgott

(2003)

53. Fireball on the Water: Naval Force Protection-Projection, Coast Guarding, Customs Border Security & Multilateral Cooperation in Rolling Back the Global Waves of Terror from the Sea Irvin Lim

(2003)

54. Revisiting Responses To Power Preponderance: Going Beyond The Balancing-Bandwagoning Dichotomy Chong Ja Ian

(2003)

55. Pre-emption and Prevention: An Ethical and Legal Critique of the Bush Doctrine and Anticipatory Use of Force In Defence of the State Malcolm Brailey

(2003)

56. The Indo-Chinese Enlargement of ASEAN: Implications for Regional Economic Integration Helen E S Nesadurai

(2003)

57. The Advent of a New Way of War: Theory and Practice of Effects Based Operation Joshua Ho

(2003)

58. Critical Mass: Weighing in on Force Transformation & Speed Kills Post-Operation Iraqi Freedom Irvin Lim

(2004)

59. Force Modernisation Trends in Southeast Asia Andrew Tan

(2004)

60. Testing Alternative Responses to Power Preponderance: Buffering, Binding, Bonding and Beleaguering in the Real World Chong Ja Ian

(2004)

61. Outlook on the Indonesian Parliamentary Election 2004 Irman G. Lanti

(2004)

62. Globalization and Non-Traditional Security Issues: A Study of Human and Drug Trafficking in East Asia Ralf Emmers

(2004)

63. Outlook for Malaysia’s 11th General Election Joseph Liow

(2004)

64. Not Many Jobs Take a Whole Army: Special Operations Forces and The Revolution in Military Affairs. Malcolm Brailey

(2004)

65. Technological Globalisation and Regional Security in East Asia J.D. Kenneth Boutin

(2004)

66. UAVs/UCAVS – Missions, Challenges, and Strategic Implications for Small and Medium Powers Manjeet Singh Pardesi

(2004)

67. Singapore’s Reaction to Rising China: Deep Engagement and Strategic Adjustment Evelyn Goh

(2004)

68. The Shifting Of Maritime Power And The Implications For Maritime Security In East Asia Joshua Ho

(2004)

69. China In The Mekong River Basin: The Regional Security Implications of Resource Development On The Lancang Jiang Evelyn Goh

(2004)

70. Examining the Defence Industrialization-Economic Growth Relationship: The Case of Singapore Adrian Kuah and Bernard Loo

(2004)

71. “Constructing” The Jemaah Islamiyah Terrorist: A Preliminary Inquiry Kumar Ramakrishna

(2004)

72. Malaysia and The United States: Rejecting Dominance, Embracing Engagement Helen E S Nesadurai

(2004)

73. The Indonesian Military as a Professional Organization: Criteria and Ramifications for Reform John Bradford

(2005)

74. Martime Terrorism in Southeast Asia: A Risk Assessment Catherine Zara Raymond

(2005)

75. Southeast Asian Maritime Security In The Age Of Terror: Threats, Opportunity, And Charting The Course Forward John Bradford

(2005)

76. Deducing India’s Grand Strategy of Regional Hegemony from Historical and Conceptual Perspectives Manjeet Singh Pardesi

(2005)

77. Towards Better Peace Processes: A Comparative Study of Attempts to Broker Peace with MNLF and GAM S P Harish

(2005)

78. Multilateralism, Sovereignty and Normative Change in World Politics Amitav Acharya

(2005)

79. The State and Religious Institutions in Muslim Societies Riaz Hassan

(2005)

80. On Being Religious: Patterns of Religious Commitment in Muslim Societies Riaz Hassan

(2005)

81. The Security of Regional Sea Lanes Joshua Ho

(2005)

82. Civil-Military Relationship and Reform in the Defence Industry Arthur S Ding

(2005)

83. How Bargaining Alters Outcomes: Bilateral Trade Negotiations and Bargaining Strategies Deborah Elms

(2005)

84. Great Powers and Southeast Asian Regional Security Strategies: Omni-enmeshment, Balancing and Hierarchical Order Evelyn Goh

(2005)

85. Global Jihad, Sectarianism and The Madrassahs in Pakistan Ali Riaz

(2005)

86. Autobiography, Politics and Ideology in Sayyid Qutb’s Reading of the Qur’an Umej Bhatia

(2005)

87. Maritime Disputes in the South China Sea: Strategic and Diplomatic Status Quo Ralf Emmers

(2005)

88. China’s Political Commissars and Commanders: Trends & Dynamics Srikanth Kondapalli

(2005)

89. Piracy in Southeast Asia New Trends, Issues and Responses Catherine Zara Raymond

(2005)

90. Geopolitics, Grand Strategy and the Bush Doctrine Simon Dalby

(2005)

91. Local Elections and Democracy in Indonesia: The Case of the Riau Archipelago Nankyung Choi

(2005)

92. The Impact of RMA on Conventional Deterrence: A Theoretical Analysis Manjeet Singh Pardesi

(2005)

93 Africa and the Challenge of Globalisation Jeffrey Herbst

(2005)

94 The East Asian Experience: The Poverty of 'Picking Winners Barry Desker and Deborah Elms

(2005)

95 Bandung And The Political Economy Of North-South Relations: Sowing The Seeds For Revisioning International Society Helen E S Nesadurai

(2005)

96 Re-conceptualising the Military-Industrial Complex: A General Systems Theory Approach Adrian Kuah

(2005)

97 Food Security and the Threat From Within: Rice Policy Reforms in the Philippines Bruce Tolentino

(2006)

98 Non-Traditional Security Issues: Securitisation of Transnational Crime in Asia James Laki

(2006)

99 Securitizing/Desecuritizing the Filipinos’ ‘Outward Migration Issue’in the Philippines’ Relations with Other Asian Governments José N. Franco, Jr.

(2006)

100 Securitization Of Illegal Migration of Bangladeshis To India Josy Joseph

(2006)

101 Environmental Management and Conflict in Southeast Asia – Land Reclamation and its Political Impact Kog Yue-Choong

(2006)

102 Securitizing border-crossing: The case of marginalized stateless minorities in the Thai-Burma Borderlands Mika Toyota

(2006)

103 The Incidence of Corruption in India: Is the Neglect of Governance Endangering Human Security in South Asia?Shabnam Mallick and Rajarshi Sen

(2006)

104 The LTTE’s Online Network and its Implications for Regional Security Shyam Tekwani

(2006)

105 The Korean War June-October 1950: Inchon and Stalin In The “Trigger Vs Justification” Debate Tan Kwoh Jack

(2006)

106 International Regime Building in Southeast Asia: ASEAN Cooperation against the Illicit Trafficking and Abuse of Drugs Ralf Emmers

(2006)

107 Changing Conflict Identities: The case of the Southern Thailand Discord S P Harish

(2006)

108 Myanmar and the Argument for Engagement: A Clash of Contending Moralities? Christopher B Roberts

(2006)

109 TEMPORAL DOMINANCE Military Transformation and the Time Dimension of Strategy Edwin Seah

(2006)

110 Globalization and Military-Industrial Transformation in South Asia: An Historical Perspective Emrys Chew

(2006)

111 UNCLOS and its Limitations as the Foundation for a Regional Maritime Security Regime Sam Bateman

(2006)

112 Freedom and Control Networks in Military Environments Paul T Mitchell

(2006)

113 Rewriting Indonesian History The Future in Indonesia’s Past Kwa Chong Guan

(2006)

114 Twelver Shi’ite Islam: Conceptual and Practical Aspects Christoph Marcinkowski

(2006)

115 Islam, State and Modernity : Muslim Political Discourse in Late 19th and Early 20th century India Iqbal Singh Sevea

(2006)

116 ‘Voice of the Malayan Revolution’: The Communist Party of Malaya’s Struggle for Hearts and Minds in the ‘Second Malayan Emergency’ (1969-1975) Ong Wei Chong

(2006)

117 “From Counter-Society to Counter-State: Jemaah Islamiyah According to PUPJI” Elena Pavlova

(2006)

118 The Terrorist Threat to Singapore’s Land Transportation Infrastructure: A Preliminary Enquiry Adam Dolnik

(2006)

119 The Many Faces of Political Islam Mohammed Ayoob

(2006)

120 Facets of Shi’ite Islam in Contemporary Southeast Asia (I): Thailand and Indonesia Christoph Marcinkowski

(2006)

121 Facets of Shi’ite Islam in Contemporary Southeast Asia (II): Malaysia and Singapore Christoph Marcinkowski

(2006)

122 Towards a History of Malaysian Ulama Mohamed Nawab

(2007)

123 Islam and Violence in Malaysia Ahmad Fauzi Abdul Hamid

(2007)

124 Between Greater Iran and Shi’ite Crescent: Some Thoughts on the Nature of Iran’s Ambitions in the Middle East Christoph Marcinkowski

(2007)

125 Thinking Ahead: Shi’ite Islam in Iraq and its Seminaries (hawzah ‘ilmiyyah) Christoph Marcinkowski

(2007)

126 The China Syndrome: Chinese Military Modernization and the Rearming of Southeast Asia Richard A. Bitzinger

(2007)

127 Contested Capitalism: Financial Politics and Implications for China Richard Carney

(2007)

128 Sentinels of Afghan Democracy: The Afghan National Army Samuel Chan

(2007)

129 The De-escalation of the Spratly Dispute in Sino-Southeast Asian Relations Ralf Emmers

(2007)

130 War, Peace or Neutrality:An Overview of Islamic Polity’s Basis of Inter-State Relations Muhammad Haniff Hassan

(2007)